大般涅槃經集解 62.4

62.4

案僧亮曰：各以手觸者，譬聞見也。同不說象體，偏見非象。亦非不說者，各得其分，非不說也。色是佛性者，正因性異，成果亦異，以偏著為失也，如金色是一槃蛇為異也。僧宗曰：第二翻也。明如來說性不同，凡夫既真而無謬，故應修也。王者譬佛，臣者譬常住經教，象譬教下理也。盲者隨所觸而說象，眾生無慧，乃計陰說我也。說離陰有我者，此計太過，下當非之也。非即六法、不離六法者，以五陰成假名人。佛性在果，豈即六法？非因無以感果，故言不離也。寶亮曰：盲人觸象，若一一而望，不得象體；然復不得離此而有象也。外道凡夫捉五陰及離陰一一計非佛性，然始終不離此六法也。有諸外道雖說有我而實無我者，破第六別計五陰外有我，謂五陰假合名為眾生，無別五陰外有我也。

Sengliang comments: "Each touching with their hands is a metaphor for hearing and seeing. Together they do not speak of the elephant's body, for partial seeing is not the elephant. Nor is it that they do not speak of it, for each grasps their part, so it is not that they do not speak. That rūpa is buddhadhātu: the direct causes differ, and the realized fruits also differ; grasping partially constitutes error, just as the golden color is one, yet the coiling of the serpent is different." Sengzong says: "This is the second round. It clarifies that the Tathāgata's explanation of the nature is not like ordinary people's: since it is true and without error, one should cultivate it. The king is a metaphor for the Buddha; the minister is a metaphor for the constantly abiding scriptural teaching; the elephant is a metaphor for the principle beneath the teaching. The blind men speak of the elephant according to what they touch; sentient beings lack wisdom, and so positing the aggregates, they speak of a self. Those who say that apart from the aggregates there is a self take this conceptualization too far, which will be refuted below. That it is neither identical to the six phenomena nor separate from the six phenomena: the provisional person is formed from the five aggregates. Buddhadhātu resides in the fruit; how could it be identical to the six phenomena? Yet without the cause there is no means to elicit the fruit; hence it is said to be not separate." Baoliang says: "When the blind men touch the elephant, if viewed one by one, they do not grasp the elephant's body; yet, again, one cannot be apart from these and have an elephant. Non-Buddhists and ordinary people, seizing upon the five aggregates and separation from the aggregates, individually conceptualize them as not being buddhadhātu; yet from beginning to end it is not separate from these six phenomena. That 'there are non-Buddhists who, although speaking of a self, in reality have no self' refutes the sixth distinct conceptualization that outside the five aggregates there is a self, asserting that the provisional combination of the five aggregates is named 'sentient being,' and there is no separate self outside the five aggregates."